Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-20-2012, 06:37 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
seriously?
Seriously!

04-20-2012, 06:45 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
About the design : what the fu** is wrong to re-use a design that worked perfectly for the past years ? See Leica : from film to digital, it's more or less the same design and the basic bouton are still at the same place, and that's good, because ergo is good too. Why change for something worst ?
Same for the OM-1 : the design is really good.
...which is exactly what he himself says, if you read the article.

He compares the Leica, for instance, to the X100. He likes the Leica because Leica has always been about handcrafted precision instruments. He doesn't like the X100 (design-wise) because it's simply attempting to copy the Leica's aesthetics.

Similarly, he likes the OM-1 (mostly) but dislikes the OM-D because it's simply caching in on the OM-series legacy without any functional reason to do so (i.e., the EVF "prism" hump).

The one digital camera he praises is the Nikon V1, which is pretty much what you'd expect from a design student. I think it looks like crap, but he thinks it has "learned" from its predecessors while creating a look of its own. A valid argument, even if you don't like that "look of its own."

Overall It's not the most sophisticated argument in the world, but he has a pretty clear thesis, and hey... it's a tossed off blog post, not a final paper. Again, whether you agree with him or not is not the point. Just realize that he's not out to trash your favorite manufacturer. He's not passing judgment on these cameras as photographic tools.
04-20-2012, 07:15 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,933
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
...which is exactly what he himself says, if you read the article.

He compares the Leica, for instance, to the X100. He likes the Leica because Leica has always been about handcrafted precision instruments. He doesn't like the X100 (design-wise) because it's simply attempting to copy the Leica's aesthetics.

Similarly, he likes the OM-1 (mostly) but dislikes the OM-D because it's simply caching in on the OM-series legacy without any functional reason to do so (i.e., the EVF "prism" hump).

The one digital camera he praises is the Nikon V1, which is pretty much what you'd expect from a design student. I think it looks like crap, but he thinks it has "learned" from its predecessors while creating a look of its own. A valid argument, even if you don't like that "look of its own."

Overall It's not the most sophisticated argument in the world, but he has a pretty clear thesis, and hey... it's a tossed off blog post, not a final paper. Again, whether you agree with him or not is not the point. Just realize that he's not out to trash your favorite manufacturer. He's not passing judgment on these cameras as photographic tools.
I personally don't see the point of copying the past, but I think there is way too much time devoted to analysis of design. People sitting around trying to figure out if something is truly new and cutting edge or, if it is copying something else.

Who really cares? The bigger question is if buttons are in easy to use places, if the design is ergonomic, basically if a camera works as a camera should. Anyway, Lauren is correct, the K5 is a solid, metal based camera body and bringing that out in the design emphasizes its strength.
04-20-2012, 07:23 AM   #19
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,007
The guy seems pretty much ignorant about the cameras and he's mostly commenting about what they look like. I doubt that he's handled the special edition K5. Hold a K5 in your hands and you will instantly know that it is not a "plastic camera". He has never touched one. For those of us old enough to remember, it was the 2 tone, polished metal and black models that were the cheaper ones. The all black cameras were more.

04-20-2012, 07:25 AM   #20
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
The guy seems pretty much ignorant about the cameras and he's mostly commenting about what they look like. I doubt that he's handled the special edition K5. Hold a K5 in your hands and you will instantly know that it is not a "plastic camera". He has never touched one. For those of us old enough to remember, it was the 2 tone, polished metal and black models that were the cheaper ones. The all black cameras were more.
That was kind of my point. He called the K-5 'bland' and doubt he knows about the WR. I bet he wouldn't have called the D7000 bland.
04-20-2012, 07:40 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
What does the WR have to do with anything in this debate?
04-20-2012, 07:43 AM   #22
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,116
Uhh ohh, someone was wrong on the internet!

I had someone with a Canon Rebel t3i (and kit lens) tell me I needed a "real" camera at a convention earlier this year when he saw my K5 with a Sigma 20 f/1.8 attached to it, and that sicne I wasn't using a flash indoors I was worng. This is based off what his professors at school told him. I just noddes, smiled, and went about taking pictures. If someoen doesn't know and doesn't want to know then you're not goign to convince them otherwise, especially the brand x fanboys.
04-20-2012, 07:50 AM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
What does the WR have to do with anything in this debate?
It has about as much to do with it as your fangirl comment does this thread. It shows is lack of knowledge about the advanced aps-c dSLR cameras. He called it bland which was seemingly based on some images he evaluated. If you read what I wrote, I said I doubt he knew about it.

04-20-2012, 08:00 AM   #24
Veteran Member
mtansley's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,139
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
Uhh ohh, someone was wrong on the internet!

I had someone with a Canon Rebel t3i (and kit lens) tell me I needed a "real" camera at a convention earlier this year when he saw my K5 with a Sigma 20 f/1.8 attached to it, and that sicne I wasn't using a flash indoors I was worng. This is based off what his professors at school told him. I just noddes, smiled, and went about taking pictures. If someoen doesn't know and doesn't want to know then you're not goign to convince them otherwise, especially the brand x fanboys.
I'll bet he was using the built-in flash as well?

I've just started doing a bit of real estate photography for a small one-man company who needed another photographer for the occasional shoot.

He uses a couple of beat-up looking Nikons (haven't a clue what they are) and he didn't even bother asking me what I use. (K-5 with Metz 58 AF-2 flash and Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 or whatever lens). He saw that it was a DSLR with hotshoe flash and wide-angle lens and that my sample photos were up to the level he wanted to see.

That was good enough for him.
04-20-2012, 08:22 AM   #25
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,116
Yep, one of those guys who wonders why thier shots on the wide end have a bite taken out of them! Auto mode too!
04-20-2012, 08:32 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
It has about as much to do with it as your fangirl comment does this thread. It shows is lack of knowledge about the advanced aps-c dSLR cameras. He called it bland which was seemingly based on some images he evaluated. If you read what I wrote, I said I doubt he knew about it.
I wonder how many times I need to say that he's talking purely about aesthetics before you'll get it...
04-20-2012, 08:44 AM   #27
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
I wonder how many times I need to say that he's talking purely about aesthetics before you'll get it...
Really? Then why is his title: :Hand:
04-20-2012, 08:53 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Really? Then why is his title:

:Hand:
Do me a favor and read through the blog post and find me ANY instance where he discusses ANY of the technology inside these cameras, except in relation to the look of the camera.
04-20-2012, 09:02 AM   #29
Senior Member
okitoki's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 150
meh... these are the sort of people sometimes I shake my head at... where design is more important than functionality... so I would take it with a grain of salt

plus... he might be the type of people to call this a ground breaking design outside the confine of current day design...



I mean, wearing shoes on your feet are so yesterday... why don't we think of another way to wear shoe (plus that would also solve the issues of wearing hats on your head too)
04-20-2012, 09:11 AM   #30
Veteran Member
mtansley's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,139
QuoteOriginally posted by okitoki Quote
I mean, wearing shoes on your feet are so yesterday... why don't we think of another way to wear shoe (plus that would also solve the issues of wearing hats on your head too)
Plus, we could always wear underwear on top of our clothes to be different as well.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, shot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any cheap 200mm fast cheap prime suggestions? tr13 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 03-08-2013 02:30 AM
Pentax 35mm f2 cheap! Lemmy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-20-2010 07:49 AM
For Sale - Sold: [US] 2 Cheap ME Supers, 1 Cheap ME - Pentax film bodies Just1MoreDave Sold Items 2 02-21-2010 02:11 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats. pasipasi Post Your Photos! 12 08-28-2008 04:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top